2种不同方法在下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙拔除术的疗效比较

中国口腔颌面外科杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (3): 239-242.

2种不同方法在下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙拔除术的疗效比较

刘军平¹,侯旭¹,赵小朋²,王建广²,潘朝斌²

1.广东省东莞市寮步医院口腔科,广东东莞 523400;2.中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院口腔颌面外科,广东广州 510120

收稿日期:2013-10-24 出版日期:2014-05-10 发布日期:2014-07-15
通讯作者: 潘朝斌,Tel:020-81332429,E-mail:docpcb@126.com E-mail:ljp762@163.com
作者简介:刘军平(1976-),男,学士,主治医师

Comparison of two methods for removal of mandibular third molar with mesioangular and horizontal impaction

LIU Jun-ping¹, HOU Xu¹, ZHAO Xiao-peng², WANG Jian-guang²,PAN Chao-bin²

1.Department of Stomatology, Liaobu Hospital. Dongguan 523400; 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University.Guangzhou 510120, Guangdong Province, China

Received:2013-10-24 Online:2014-05-10 Published:2014-07-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的:比较“T”形截断法与单纯锤凿劈冠法拔除下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙的疗效。方法:138例需要拔除单侧下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙的患者,随机分为A、B 2组,A组70例,B组68例。 A组采用“T”形截断法,B组采用传统锤凿冠劈法,去除阻力后拔除。对拔牙术中、术后并发症进行观察,采用SPSS13 .0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:A 组术中、术后并发症显著少于B 组(P< 0.05 )。结论:“T”形截断法在下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙拔除术中创伤小、并发症少,值得临床推广。

关键词: 阻生牙, “T”形截断, 凿骨劈冠

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of T-shaped splitting combining Turbo-drill removal with traditional extraction in removal of mandibular third molar with mesioangular and horizontal impaction. METHODS: A total of 138 patients who required removal of mandibular third molar with mesioangular and horizontal impaction were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A (70 cases) and group B (68 cases). Patients in group A underwent extraction of the impacted mandibular third molar with T-shaped splitting combining Turbo-drill removal technique, while patients in group B underwent mandibular third molar extraction with traditional method. The operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded to assess the effects of two methods. SPPSS 13.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The intraoperative and postoperative complication incidence in group A was significantly lower than that of group B (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The method of T-shaped splitting combining Turbo-drill in removal of mandibular third molar with mesioangular and horizontal impaction is safe and with fewer complications. It is worthy of wide clinical application.

Key words: Impacted tooth, T-shaped splitting, Traditional extraction

中图分类号:

R782.11

刘军平,侯旭,赵小朋,王建广,潘朝斌. 2种不同方法在下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙拔除术的疗效比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2014, 12(3): 239-242.

LIU Jun-ping, HOU Xu, ZHAO Xiao-peng, WANG Jian-guang,PAN Chao-bin. Comparison of two methods for removal of mandibular third molar with mesioangular and horizontal impaction[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014, 12(3): 239-242.

参考文献

【1】邱蔚六. 口腔颌面外科学 . 第6 版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008: 91-98.
【2】Sammartino G, Tia M, Bucci T, et al. Prevention of mandibular third molar extraction-associated periodontal defects:a compar-ative study . J Periodontol, 2009, 80(3): 389-396.
【3】Sammartino G, Tia M, Gentile E, et al. Platelet-rich plasma and resorbable membrane for prevention of periodontal defects after deeply impacted lower third molar extraction . J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(11): 2369-2373.
【4】孟凡文, 壮荣, 吴晓亮, 等. 下颌阻生智齿两种拔除方法疗效比较. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2011, 4(8): 46-48.
【5】徐光宙,俞创奇.阻生下颌第三磨牙的治疗及并发症研究进展. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2010, 20(4): 289-292.
【6】Huang GJ, Rue TC. Third-molar extraction as a risk factor for temporomandibular disorder . J Am Dent Assoc, 2006, 137(11): 1547-1554.
【7】de Jongh A, Muris P, Schoenmakers N, et al. Nagative cognitions of dental phobics: reliability and validity of the dental cognitions questionnaire . Behav Res Ther, 1995, 33(5): 507-515.
【8】张雪晶, 刘利君, 杨少清. 拔牙病人牙科焦虑心理的研究 . 广东牙病防治, 2001, 9(4): 254-255.
【9】唐成芳, 李晓红, 安虹, 等. 牙科焦虑症患者治疗中医患关系的研究. 中国医学伦理学, 2005, 18(1): 68-69.
【10】赵小朋, 潘朝斌, 叶华山. “T形”劈冠法在下颌中位近中水平阻生智牙拔除术中的应用. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2011, 9(6): 491-493.
【11】Jerjes W, El-Maaytah M, Swinson B, et al. Inferior alveolar nerve injury and surgical difficulty prediction in third molar surgery: the role of dental panoramic tomography. J Clin Dent,2006,17(5):122-130.
【12】Yuasa H, Kawai T, Surgiura M. Classification of surgical difficulty in extracting impacted third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2002, 40(1): 26-31.
【13】梅银娥, 周春泉. 下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术并发症分析 . 临床口腔医学杂志, 2009, 25(12): 735-736.

[1]	杨清然, 徐光宙. 下颌骨埋伏阻生第三磨牙拔除术后自然转归及对邻近第二磨牙的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(4): 365-372.
[2]	康铖, 朱挺, 韩爽, 娄伊伊. 笑气联合局麻在阻生牙拔除中的应用效果评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2024, 22(2): 165-169.
[3]	王辰昕, 彭晶, 黄昕, 施乐, 戴小锋. 柱状胶原蛋白海绵用于阻生牙拔除的效果及并发症风险分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2023, 21(2): 146-151.
[4]	吴烨, 刘欢欢, 陈嘉民, 牛刚, 汪涛, 谢福平, 林李嵩. 虚拟与仿真技术在下颌阻生牙拔除术实验教学中的应用[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2022, 20(3): 303-306.
[5]	丁作友, 朱光来, 修力军. 下颌埋伏阻生牙拔除后创口关闭与否对创口愈合的影响[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2021, 19(1): 18-21.
[6]	刘芷扬, 陈敏洁, 张伟杰, 魏文斌, 韩孜祥, 柴盈. 三维重建技术在下颌阻生第三磨牙拔除术临床教学中的应用[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2020, 18(1): 68-70.
[7]	宋勇, 李想, 蔡嫚, 王耀辉. 超声骨刀与涡轮法拔除下颌阻生第三磨牙的效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(6): 540-544.
[8]	丁凤, 吴娴, 杨细虎, 周飞军, 丁晓军. 超声骨刀微创拔牙法与传统拔牙法拔除下颌水平阻生牙的效果比较[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(5): 431-435.
[9]	白希婧, 吕东升, 周贤, 王亚楠, 杨学文. 胶原蛋白海绵用于下颌阻生牙拔除术的效果分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2019, 17(2): 155-158.
[10]	汪湧, 徐颖, 杨驰, 戈旌, 池政兵. 微创拔除压迫下牙槽神经的第三磨牙方法分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2018, 16(1): 48-51.
[11]	张洁, 沈国华, 吕翔, 王晓英, 李春艳. 45°反角涡轮钻改良拔除术在下颌阻生第三磨牙中的应用效果评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(6): 542-544.
[12]	胡颖恺，徐光宙，杨驰. 老年人骨埋伏阻生牙37例临床分析[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2016, 14(1): 72-75.
[13]	徐光宙, 杨驰, 范新东, 俞创奇, 汪湧, 张瑛. 以下颌神经管为参照的下颌阻生第三磨牙的分类及临床意义[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2014, 12(2): 131-135.
[14]	王飞, 宇文婷, 梁衍灿, 程慧琳, 焦九阳, 鲁颖娟, 陈伟良. 塞来昔布用于下颌阻生牙拔除术后镇痛的疗效评价[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2014, 12(1): 65-68.